Failing to reinstitute a new revised FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[humblebum]

might very well be Obama's undoing. There is no single issue more feared by right wing broadcasters. It would force them to compete. It's that simple. It worked for 40 years. Over the air broadcasting is distinctively different from other media. Radio is the most pervasive of all and it is everywhere - at home, in the car, in the workplace, and it is FREE OF CHARGE. These characteristics have enabled Limbaugh and Hannity to rise to such heights almost uncontested and now they are free to dismantle Obama just as they did Clinton. Sorry Democrats, you blew it on this one. YES, it was that important.

[safeinOhio]

1. Use the anti-trust laws to break up Clear Channel, Fox and

the other big(too big) Corps. Do the same thing without all of the blow back.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. No reason to think that the 'independent' stations can't still be influenced

Just because ownership is gone doesn't prevent bribes, pressure, threats, anything to get what the GOP wants.

In more remote areas there might only be one or two outlets. They can carpet their broadcasts wall-to-wall with GOP talking points and the fact that New Yorkers are hearing a different story won't change that.

The Fairness Doctrine worked.

[Doremus]

36. Its naive to think that liberal programming will spring up in the vacuum.

Liberal programming had just as much opportunity to grow in the 20+ years since the demise of FD.

It didn't and it won't.

Follow the money. Those who own most of it are not likely to promote liberal ideals anytime in the foreseeable future ... or anytime, period.

That is a fact and it will not be overcome by anti-trust laws or FCC ownership regs.

Which is why regulating CONTENT of programming is part and parcel of taking back the people's airwaves.

[shraby]

2. What would be much more effective is to restrict

ownership so no one company or person can own all the sources of news in any market area. Break up the monopolies in media.

[humblebum]

4. That would work , but those companies would still be able to broadcast

rightwing programs uncontested and here is the most important part: these programs are being broadcast over the people's own airwaves. Broadcasters are given the privilege to broadcast. We really should have learned our lesson from the Clinton years and the way he was crucified relentlessly by the RW. Also many of Bush's flaws were able to be downplayed or hidden for a long time because there was no competition in that medium. All the FD did was guarantee a fair response to important issues. It was not an equal time regulation as some have said.

[babylonsister]

3. "Concern" noted. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Thank you. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, Republicans have won 3 Presidential elections and

Democrats have won 3.

Dismantle Clinton? He won two Presidential elections.

[Johonny]

12. I agree

These channels have a clear hold on a small percentage of the population. Much of the rest of the population sees these channels as counter productive or worse completely worthless. Still Congress should consider breaking up ownership conglomerates in the media industry simply because it's good industry practice and sound economic principal. It's not exactly the fairness doctrine, but it should allow for a more honest market place in radio, print and television.

[humblebum]

18. He was also impeached.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. But not by the voters

[humblebum]

24. Indirectly not by the voters, but millions of ditto heads,

who were conditioned by listening to a very one-sided medium, called their elected officials and told them how to vote. All sides were never heard. So many critical issues were kept from the airwaves because they simply were not allowed the airtime.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Millions more opposed impeachment and

Republicans lost seats in Congress just on the threat of impeachment. Seems to me like the system works.

[Occam Bandage]

7. The more Limbaugh talks, the better it is for all of us.

[Cetacea]

14. Tell that to the average worker who listens to him in "rush" hour.

This guy help win elections. I am sure many people would like to hear an alternative to Rush but we can't depend on the left to buy out huge media companies.

[Raskolnik]

16. People that want to hear something other than Rush Limbaugh can use the little dial on their radio.

To act like people are prisoners the Rush Limbaugh program is just insulting.

[Cetacea]

22. Rush has Clear Channel WATTAGE. Ever try picking up AA in your car?

Where I live they cut the wattage when Malloy comes on. I have to acoustically "squint" to hear him over the evangelical screamer.

When a group of liberals buy out one of the big five, please let me know.
Until then, the electorate is controlled by the media.

[blueclown]

26. Thank you!

All radio signals are not created equal.

Rush gets the best signals in station after station.

Others, including Air America, do not have that luxury.

[Occam Bandage]

17. No, we tried that. Nobody cared about Air America.

Turns out liberals don't like listening to partisan blowhards.

[humblebum]

19. exactly. The proof the FD works is already demonstrated in the 40

or so years of its existence. When it died Rush was born and RW talk radio thrived uncontested.

[Joe Fields]

33. "average" workers don't listen to Rush

[Doremus]

37. What's "average"?

On any given day in any place in the country, the RWers I know will all spout the same talking points, gleaned from their daily dose of Oxymoron.

They hold "average" jobs, have "average" appearances, and if they're talking about anything but politics/government, they sound perfectly "average."

I've no doubt the faithful Billo/Hannity/Beck (et al) viewers are just as "average."

That's a lot of "average" people walking around with heads full of RW spew.

[KharmaTrain]

8. How About Reregulation...

Think of radio like the banking industry. Mega corporates bought out thousands of smaller stations and companies and dominated not only ownership but programming as well. Rushbo's station total soared thanks to companies like Cheap Channel and Citadel gobbling up both competitors and debt...and, they, like the banks, are now on the verge of bankruptcy. That said, it was Telcom '96 that made this all possible...it took access away from local operators and voices and turned it into a big repeater station for the hate blowhards.

Return access and encourage local and minority ownership and watch radio transform. Reregulate the number of stations a corporate can own, shorten license renewal periods back to 3 years (from the current 10), make it easier to challenge licenses that are held by outside interests, strictly curtail Limited Management Agreements that allow companies to own even more stations by proxy...overall, do what FDR did in 1941 when he instituted the duopoly rules in the first place...eliminate the ability of one company to dominate the airwaves (in those days it was RCA/NBC) and encourage the growth of local radio...a model that helped it flourish for the next 30 years.

[Raskolnik]

9. You have it exactly backwards. Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage, et al desperately *wanted*

Obama to try to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Nothing would do their ratings more good than for Obama to become the caricature they tried to paint him as during the election.

[Cetacea]

13. You see, you fear them too. They control the agenda.

Obama has to think twice about doing anything because these freaks have total propaganda control.

[Raskolnik]

15. Huh? I don't think you understood my point.

The fact that Obama isn't choosing to reinstitute the FD demonstrates that he isn't scared of Limbaugh, et al. They wanted him to pick that fight, as it would have done their ratings a world of good.

[Cetacea]

21. Obama still has to dance with them though.

And they'll get their ratings by bashing him 24/7 anyway.

[Joe Fields]

31. I definitely agree. The FD is a red herring, a false flag to rally support

of their disillusioned base. They are baiting congress and America with it, using it as part of their agenda to paint Obama and the dems as Marxists. Naturally, the best thing to do is not re-institute the FD and let them all lead their minions over the cliff into the abyss they are headed for.

[Lex]

11. I do have concerns about big corporations monopolizing all the media.

That should be stopped and everything should be broken up like they did with the telephone monopoly.

[humblebum]

20. I, as an American citizen, want to hear diverse points of view over

my(our)airwaves. I am being denied that opportunity by these people who have hijacked my (our) airwaves. I can't afford satellite radio, so I wish to use the free airwaves.

[Joe Fields]

34. They haven't hijacked anything.

My take? Turn your radio dial, either AM or FM, it doesn't matter. How many stations are there where you live? 25? 50? How many of them produce right wing talk radio shows? less than a handful? How is that not diverse?

It's about ratings. You want to know something? If air america was as entertaining as it was informative, we wouldn't be having this debate. It would be all over the airwaves. Air America, and all other liberal talk radio is boring, the hosts are boring and will put the average liberal to sleep. To the uninitiated, they would be torture to listen to.

You want competition on the airwaves? It's simple. Just find some liberals who can out bombast Rush, Savage, Hannity, as well as be able to frame issues to where average folk can wrap their heads around.

[depakid]

38. Like most apologists- you get your facts wrong

Where things stand

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine?

Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all.

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the commercial talk stations in his town, he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[humblebum]

41. They would never be allowed on the air as it is now.

There are many who could compete with the RWers. the argument that a fairness doctrine would backfire on Obama or that it wouldn't change anything doesn't make it. With a new FD liberals would be able to argue against any protests the RW raises and the RW could respond in kind. It's called DEMOCRACY.

[lmn84]

25. I disagree

His undoing? Not really. I read up on the Fairness Doctrine, and I think if they waste their time by reinstituting it, it will make no difference. The FCC (through order from the Supreme Court) has the right to enforce it, and when the Fairness Doctrine was in practice the FCC did almost NOTHING. So to me, the whole thing is just a big waste of time. There are plenty of media resources available to us, who cares about Fox News?? The fact that they are "more" popular just means that Republicans like to complain more than we do. We're grown ups, when we don't like something we do something about it, when they don't like something they hop on the radio and rant and rave. Let them. Why should we care so much?

[Doremus]

40. Because they foment hate, tell lies and function as RW propaganda machines.

...which faithful listeners take as gospel and repeat to every person they communicate with or have influence over on any given day.

The people's airwaves should not be conscripted by entities that are intent on doing them harm.

[Xenotime]

27. Why are those who broadcast Rush and Hannity just declared Enemies of the State

Rush has said he wants Obama to fail. Sounds like treason to me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Lots of people here wanted Bush to fail and said it openly.

Let's be careful throwing that treason word around.

David

[Spike89]

28. Fairness doctrine inneffective anyway

Rush has used the entertainment dodge since he got started. Savage attacks both repubs and democrats by staking a claim to the insane wing of the loony right. (is there even an opposite point of view to his?) The fairness doctrine, or any reconstituted version, couldn't maintain constitutionality and effectively change the radio landscape. As an "entertainer", Rush isn't news, nor is what he says an official republican message. It would be a futile attempt to solve a problem by using tactics that violate our principles at the same time--a double win for Rush and his ilk.

The fairness doctrine worked only to keep political ads out of the real news broadcasts and to stop a broadcaster from only having one candidate invited to speak on air. It never was designed to ensure equal time or popularity for opinions or entertainment. Some things simply can't be legislated without surrendering way too much.

[humblebum]

30. You are right in saying that it wasn't an equal time provision

But it would guarantee that opposing sides of important issues would be honestly (as much as possible)given to the public over the same medium. It's the theory of a well informed electorate. 9/11 would have been covered and debated in a much more thorough and open manner if we would have had it. Also, The FD would be especially helpful now because the right wing is doing everything they can to derail all of Obama's programs to help the economy and I must say they are having some effect. If Mitt Romney is being sworn in in january of 2013, remember the Fairness Doctrine.

[Joe Fields]

32. yep. what you said. (does that make me a dittohead?)

:toast:

[depakid]

35. The fairness dictrine worked just fine for many years

and this "entertainer" non-sense is simply broadcaster propaganda.

As to constitutionality- LOL- it's been upheld by a UNANIMOUS supreme court.